Subject: Re: [sv-bc] VPI model issues on interfaces
From: Francoise Martinolle (fm@cadence.com)
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 07:19:36 PST
This email was intended to reach the sv-cc reflector. Sorry for the mistake.
Francoise
'
At 05:41 PM 2/3/2004 -0500, Francoise Martinolle wrote:
>Instance diagram
>-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
>
>defparam should only be available for modules since it is deprecated in SV
>Why are interface and interface arrays iterations common to instances? Can
>you have
>interfaces in packages?
>
>Interface
>-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
>why iteration on modpath from interfaces, do we have specify blocks inside
>an interface?
>It does not look like we have specify blocks declared in interfaces.
>However there is a section in the interface chapter which states that
>specify blocks inside module can refer to an interface signal accoding to
>the direction provided by the modport.
>It does not mean that specify blocks can be inside interfaces. In fact the
>formal bnf disallows it.
>I think that the modpath IEEE diagram needs to be modified to show that a
>path term expr can be an interface signal.
>Intermodpath diagram needs to also be modified to show interface signals.
>I am not sure how though.
>
>Interface tf decl
>-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
>
>should interface tf decl be eliminated as there are not iterations leading
>to it from the interface class or from anywhere? Unless it is meant to be
>tf_decl since it appears in the IO decl diagram 30.15?
>I think we only return the tf decl which appears as io decl in modport.
>The reason for this is because they represent the tf prototype declaration
>for which there may be multiple implementations.
>May be the name tf decl or interface tf decl could be changed.
>
>
>modport:
>-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
>should relation from modport to interface be named vpiInstance like in the
>interface diagram?
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Feb 04 2004 - 07:29:06 PST